> > If a model A has a foreign key on model B, then the table for A > requires a field to track the relation. However, if model B has a > "many to one" on A.... table A requires a field. >
sorry, can you clarify that for me? - specifically: "model A has a foreign key on model B" - which direction do you mean exactly? or let me try to put it differently: let's say that our model has two domain classes: Parent and Child. (Parent can have many Children.) Taking this model, and rewriting what you said: "If Parent has a foreign key on Child, then the table for Parent requires a field to track the relation. However, if Child has a "many-to-one" on Parent... Parent requires a field." Isn't that saying the same thing twice (and both times wrong)? If Parent has a foreign key on Child, then the foreign key field is on Child, right? And, if Child has a "many-to-one" on Parent, then, again, Child has the foreign key field. Or did I just think backwards when reading your post? ;) I think what the original question is asking is, can the definition of Parent have a "one-to-many" which points to Child? At the database level there would be no difference: Child would still have the foreign key field. - dan p.s. I don't mean to comment about where fixes should be made (in Admin or in Forms, etc). Just trying to clarify the question. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
